The Patriot Post® · Going Backwards on Settled Science

Global warming is far from the most pressing issue on voters’ minds. According to Reuters, just 16% said they feel motivated to vote because of climate change, which pales in comparison to the 84% who said they don’t. On a related matter, Reuters also found that 37.1% would “consider this issue as one of many important factors” when voting. This is slightly above the 30.7% who responded that “this issue will not impact” their ballots.

Yet there’s another related reason, and it has to do with where the scientific body is heading. Two examples tell the story. The New York Times recently ran a piece titled “Anatomy Does Not Determine Gender, Experts Say” wherein the author asserts, “Defining gender as a condition determined strictly by a person’s genitals is based on a notion that doctors and scientists abandoned long ago as oversimplified and often medically meaningless.”

A few days later, some 1,600 scientists cosigned a statement in which they bellowed, “As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using ‘genetic testing’. This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity.”

Keep in mind, we’re not debating rocket science or space physics in these instances. We’re literally fighting over common sense and whether or not there are even two genders. The XX and XY chromosomes are what we can unequivocally refer to as “settled science,” yet the scientific body is going backwards by suggesting everything in life is relative. For this reason, it’s not inappropriate at all to ask the question: Why shouldn’t we question the prevailing narrative on climate change?